Laserfiche WebLink
Kesponse <br />The TE/EA notes there will be <br />originating in the iJorth cork <br />action. The impacts of coal <br />Central region were discussed <br />Colorado Pegional Coal ES. <br />Chapter 4 <br />Comment <br />no increase in coal train traffic <br />Valley as a result of the prnpnsed <br />train traffic throughout the l•lest <br />at length in the West Central <br />The TE/EA should zlso briefly discuss and incorporate by refer- <br />ence the earlier treatmen± of the Surface Mining Act in imple- <br />menting regulations. <br />Response <br />_ BLM Manual 17g2 requires that the Mitigating ~1easures included <br />in Chapter 4 be those which are not already required by law or <br />included in the applicant's proposal. Therefore, no change \•:as <br />made in the text of Chapter 4. However; the impact analysis <br />(Chapter 3) of the draft TE/EA does discuss applicable reeula- <br />tions of OS!•1 znd for further discussion, the Final West Central <br />• 6olorado Regional Coal ES should be referenced. <br />( Chapter 5 . <br />• Comment <br />~" The statement that the vandalism and destruction of cultural <br />• sites would occur due to the proposed action on lease appli- <br />cation C-27432 should be corrected. <br />Response <br />See errata for text change. <br />Appendix - <br />Comment <br />BLh1 has incorrectly applied the unsuitability criterion con- <br />cerning reclaimability because no land has been determined to <br />have been reclaimed to the standards of SMCRA. <br />Response <br />The unsuitability criterion requires that BLh1, as the land <br />management agency, use existing hydrologic soil and revege- <br />tation studies in order to determine if reclamation is pos- <br />Bible. in reaching its cnnclusinn on reclaimahilit\•, the <br />siUCS E'i In trn' ai'"' anc n~ ieS tn: T in'•: '\'~ ;w _n G" .j. <br />- da t:' . <br />